NNFCC

The Bioeconomy Consultants

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement

March 2012
A report for DECC
Authors: Dr Geraint D Evans; Lucy Nattrass

Disclaimer
While NNFCC considers that the information and opinions given in this work are
sound, all parties must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it.
NNFCC does not make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to
the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report and
assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information.
NNFCC will not assume any liability to anyone for any loss or damage arising out of
the provision of this report.

NNFCC
NNFCC is a leading international consultancy with expertise on the conversion of
biomass to bioenergy, biofuels and bio-based products.

NNFCC, Biocentre,
York Science Park,
Innovation Way,
Heslington, York,
YO10 5DG.

Phone: +44 (0)1904 435182

Fax: +44 (0)1904 435345
E: enquiries@nnfcc.co.uk
Web: www.nnfcc.co.uk

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 2 of 15

Executive Summary
This briefing paper discusses the potential for introducing an efficiency based
measurement to categorise advanced Energy from Waste (EfW) processes.
Biomass, whether specially grown or originating from wastes, is a limited resource
and it is important to maximise the value extracted from each tonne processed. In
power generation, this means maximising the amount of power exported to the
National Grid per tonne of biomass processed. Hence, DECCs policy aims look to
drive energy efficiency and value. However, measuring efficiency of an ACT on a
consistent basis from plant to plant is challenging and complex. A one size fits all
efficiency measure will not be straight forward to set up and will be complex and
expensive to implement and manage.

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 3 of 15

Contents
1

Energy Balances and Energy Efficiency ....................................................................... 6

Challenges Pros and Cons of using efficiency to categorise waste ACTs ............ 6

Inputs Boundaries ............................................................................................................. 7

3.1

Waste Feedstocks ......................................................................................................... 7

3.2

Oxygen......................................................................................................................... 11

3.3

Other inputs ................................................................................................................. 12

Outputs Boundaries ....................................................................................................... 12

Other ................................................................................................................................ 13

Conclusions: Use of an Efficiency Cut off for Advanced and Standard ACTs. ..... 13

6.1

Implementation Costs ................................................................................................ 13

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 4 of 15

Table of Figures
Figure 1 Allocating energy flows by mass, energy or price ............................................ 10
Figure 2 Allocating energy flows by substitution credits ................................................. 11

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 5 of 15

Energy Balances and Energy Efficiency

Energy balances are used to demonstrate and account for the flows of energy
through processes. They account all energy inputs and outputs within defined
system boundaries, in a common reporting unit. Energy can be converted into
different forms, e.g. mechanical energy to heat energy, but due to the first law of
thermodynamics, there can be no accumulation of energy, and therefore the sum
of energy inputs must equal the sum of energy outputs and energy storage.
Energy balances can be used to determine the energy efficiency of a conversion
process, usually defined as the useful energy out (for example MWh of electricity)
divided by the energy inputs:
Energy efficiency (%) = useful energy produced x100 / energy input
For Energy from Wastes (EfW), the main energy input is the chemical energy content
of the fuel, measured as the calorific value (Lower heating value, LHV or Higher
heating value, HHV). Other energy inputs include, but are not limited to, any energy
used to process the feedstock prior to gasification (depending on the system
boundary chosen), any energy used to produce any oxygen used by the gasifier
(again depending on the system boundary chosen). Energy outputs include
electricity, heat, chemical energy content of carbon left in ash, heat losses etc.
One of the key challenges in calculating energy efficiency is in defining the
boundaries of the energy inputs and the energy outputs in a consistent manner. For
coal fired processes, this is relatively straight forward as there are set standards
available and years of experience to draw on. For waste processes, however, this is
not straight forward, in particular when it comes to defining the boundaries of the
energy inputs to a system.

Challenges Pros and Cons of using efficiency to categorise

waste ACTs

Energy efficiencies are already required by regulators for some projects. Energy
efficiency is reported to the Environment Agency under Environmental Permitting
Regulations and in application for R1 status. This defines an energy from waste plant
either as recovery (R1) or a disposal operation (D10). This categorisation is based on
a modified efficiency calculation, calculated using the R1 formula. For these
purposes, the system boundaries comprise only the essential parts of the incineration
and energy recovery process, including combustion chambers, boilers, flue gas
cleaning systems, and often energy transformation and recovery equipment. The
energy contained in the waste refers to waste after pretreatment since the purpose
of R1 is to differentiate the EfW plant itself from landfill, regardless of the waste type
being combusted (i.e. rMSW1, RDF or SRF).

Defined here as residual MSW; residual Municipal Solid Waste

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 6 of 15

For the RO banding sub categorisation and the future EMR, the aim would be to
differentiate between different technology types so that the more efficient can be
more strongly incentivised. To be robust, therefore, the variety of technology types
and their differing requirements need to be considered in the energy efficiency
calculation in a consistent way. Otherwise, some developers will be advantaged
and others disadvantaged and unintended consequences may arise.
When calculating an energy balance (or energy efficiency calculation), it is
essential to define the boundaries of what is included and what is excluded when
accounting for total energy inputs and total energy outputs. When calculating the
energy balance around a single plant where the aim is to understand the
performance of that plant only, perhaps to compare performance over one day
against another, these can be defined as required, providing that the same
boundaries are used each time a balance is calculated to allow comparison
between balances. However, where the objective is to compare single energy
balances from a number of plants, all of different design and using, for example,
different feedstocks, then choosing the boundaries becomes critical to enabling
inter-plant comparison and highly complex.

Inputs Boundaries

3.1

Waste Feedstocks

The proposed UK ACT projects include a wide variety of configurations and

feedstocks. Some projects will process rMSW, some RDF or SRF and some a mixture
of feed materials. Some projects will receive RDF or SRF made by another company,
receiving a gate fee of the order of 20-40/tonne; others will receive rMSW with a
gate fee of the order of 75/tonne and will process it in their own on site
MRF/MBT/MHT2 before gasifying the resulting RDF/SRF. Hence, there is an issue here
as to whether to define the energy balance boundary at the gasifier or further
upstream in the waste processing chain:
Option 1. Define the feedstock input chemical energy at the gasifier feed hopper.
In this case, any energy expended in preparing the feedstock is not counted in the
energy balance and any credits which may arise for recovering recyclates are not
assigned. Hence:
1.

Energy expended upstream of the gasifier feed hopper will not be

manifested in the efficiency calculation leading to the possibility that
excessive energy will be used upstream (e.g. drying very wet wastes) to
enhance ROC yields.

2.

Downdraft fixed bed gasifiers will be advantaged as they require a

briquetted feedstock the energy used in briquetting (up to 10% of the
energy in the feedstock) will not be counted.

MRF Materials Recycling Facility; MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment plant; MHT Mechanical Heat
Treatment plant.
Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 7 of 15

3.

Gasifiers that can process rMSW such as plasma gasifiers and gratetype gasifiers may be disadvantaged as they do not require any waste
pre-processing. Such gasifiers could though also process rMSW and
RDF/SRF in campaigns or even blends of rMSW and RDF/SRF. As well as
being disadvantaged, efficiencies of these plants may therefore
fluctuate, perhaps across any set banding cut-off. As a result, a plant
may switch between being an advanced system and a standard
system as feedstock changes occur.

4.

Where gasifiers are able to switch between using rMSW and, for
example, RDF, the different embedded energy contents3 of the
different types of wastes will not be taken into consideration. A system
for monitoring and auditing these changes will need to be put in place,
perhaps using carbon 14. This could potentially add large costs across
all projects including those where switching to rMSW processing is not
an option.

5.

There is less incentive to increase recycling rates upstream of the

gasifier. Additional revenue through increased power sales and
increased ROCs will be obtained by maximising input energy levels. If
enhanced recycling can be achieved and is a realistic option, then
this may reduce the ACT input energy levels and hence reduce the
power available for sale and the ROC income.

A variant on option 1 is to combine C14 measurement of biogenic content with

MWh output to provide a measure of MWh produced per kg of fossil (or biogenic)
carbon. This measure would, though, not highlight the different embedded energy
contents of the different types of wastes that could be processed. It might,
therefore, drive excessive feedstock preparation activities to yield an enhanced
ROC value. If the volume of biogenic plastics in the wastes to be processed4 was to
increase, backing out an equivalent volume of fossil derived plastics, then fossil GHG
emissions per tonne of waste processed, assuming constant total plastics content
would reduce. However, it should be noted that the optimal processing pathway
for bioplastics recovery (advanced gasification versus say recycling) is not yet clear.
A variation on the above is to set an input feed material biogenic content cut off,
for example at 90%. This can have the unintended consequence of driving plant
operators to blend wastes with wood to achieve the set biogenic content incurring
not only extra costs but also perhaps unnecessary GHG emissions (through
transportation, extra processing etc.). There will be an element of diminishing returns
beyond a certain biogenic content which perhaps needs to be identified. It should
also be noted that the biogenic power will be blended with non-biogenic power
in the national grid. This point is recognised in the Renewable Transport Fuels
Obligation which now permits partially renewable fuels.
3
4

The energy used to process rMSW to produce, say, RDF in a MRF

For example, by gasification
Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 8 of 15

Option 2. Define the feedstock input chemical energy at a point prior to waste pretreatment in a MRF/MBT/MHT. Issues arising from this option are:
1.

The definition of the start of pre-treatment is difficult to define,

particularly as the systems used for waste collection and treatment
differ across the UK.
a.

2.

For example, in some regions, wet and hence low calorific food
waste may be source segregated while in other regions not.
Where not pre-segregated, then this will lower the calorific value
of the waste stream and hence impact the ACTs efficiency. An
ACT in one region may end up with a different efficiency to an
identical plant in another.

This option is often used to indicate that the best energy efficiency is
obtained by those processes that burn or gasify raw, untreated waste
(e.g. rMSW). This is made on the assumption that all the energy inputs
to the MRF are assigned to the RDF/SRF output. However, MRF energy
inputs must be fairly allocated across each of the MRF output streams,
in a similar way to Life Cycle Analysis calculations. This, though, brings
added complication and challenge as there are different, equally
valid, ways to allocate:
a.

By mass. The MRF energy inputs are allocated by mass flow

rates. This would result in the densest materials (e.g. steel)
receiving an excessive share of the energy input while the least
dense products (e.g. RDF) receiving the least. i.e. H1 in the
figure below (Figure 1) would be disproportionally large.

b.

By energy content. The MRF energy inputs are allocated by

energy flow rates (this is the allocation process used by the RED).
In this case, MRF outputs having no calorific value such as steel
and aluminium (H1 and H2 in the Figure 1) would receive no
energy allocation. H3 for plastics would receive an unfairly high
allocation as plastics have an high energy content per kg.

c.

By price. The MRF energy inputs are allocated according to

market price (this is the allocation process used by Publicly
Accessible Standard PAS2050). This can often be the most
robust allocation procedure available for life cycle analysis
calculations across all applications (not just energy
applications). However, in the case of a MRF, the RDF/SRF
product, in having a negative monetary value, will receive either
an energy credit for having been processed or will receive no
allocation of MRF energy inputs. i.e. H5 in Figure 1 could be
negative which would yield a higher gasifier efficiency.

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 9 of 15

Figure 1 Allocating energy flows by mass, energy or price

d.

By substitution credits. This is the most complex allocation

procedure and is the process that was used by the RTFO before
RED alignment in December 2011. Substitution credits calculate
a credit for the energy that would have been used to produce,
for example, steel which has not now been produced because
recycled steel has been recovered (see Figure 2 below). The
credits for each of the recyclate streams are then added to the
RDF/SRF stream from which the MRF energy input is deducted.
Hence, if the credits are greater than the MRF energy input, then
the RDF/SRF stream energy value could be improved. The key
challenge in using substitution credits is again one of boundaries
when calculating the energy credit. However, substitution
credits do best represent real life operations.

3.

The option to include feedstock pre-treatment within the boundaries of

the ACT efficiency calculation while fairly allocating the MRF energy
demand across the full range of recyclates should encourage higher
recycling rates as ACT operators will be encouraged to maximise the
amount of MRF energy demand allocated to recyclates.

4.

By including feedstock pre-treatment within the boundaries of ACT

efficiency, the energy required for specialist pre-treatment such as
briquetting should be properly accounted for.

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 10 of 15

Figure 2 Allocating energy flows by substitution credits

3.2

Oxygen

Gasifiers require an oxidant which can be air (often described as air blown), steam,
oxygen or a mixture of 2 or 3 of these. Oxygen is typically used when:
1.

A gas turbine is to be used. Gas turbines require the input syngas to be

compressed. It is uneconomic to compress the nitrogen that is a
feature of air blown gasification systems syngases (around 50% of
syngas).

2.

Where a fuel or other chemical is to be produced from the syngas. The

nitrogen, which is large constituent of air blown syngases, does not
take any part in the fuel/chemical synthesis reactions, but takes space
in the reactors which is costly.

2.

Where a specific syngas CV is needed (e.g. for RO 2009 definition). If

there is a drive to reduce waste fossil content, then the waste CV will
reduce. The CV of the output syngas will then also reduce. One way
to increase that syngas CV is to use oxygen or oxygen enriched air to
reduce the syngas nitrogen content and hence increase its CV. The
extra costs to a project developer of doing this would need to be
balanced against the increase ROC income.

The issues which arise with respect to energy balance boundaries and oxygen are:
1.

Whether to include the oxygen plant within the energy balance at all.
For example, the oxygen plant may be an existing plant used to supply

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 11 of 15

a variety of other customers and the extra oxygen being supplied to

the ACT may be spare.
2.

3.3

How to allocate the energy input to the oxygen plant across a variety
of oxygen applications. For example, one oxygen plant factory could
supply a range of end users on the same site.

Other inputs

Some ACTs require other inputs such as olivine for bed material in fluidised beds
while others do not. A decision would have to be made as to whether an energy
debit is applied for such inputs to ensure consistency. Adding such debits would
increase complexity.

Outputs Boundaries

ACTs can be used to produce a variety of useful outputs including electricity, fuels,
chemicals and biochar. An issue can arise when calculating energy efficiencies
when one or more co-products are produced which do not have an energy
application. Examples are

Gasification plants producing ammonia plus power

Pyrolysis plants producing biochar plus power

In these cases, if the efficiency is defined as the MWh of power produced divided by
the energy inputs, then what is a valuable and efficient plant might be
downgraded due to an apparently low efficiency to power.
The energy value or exergy of the outputs should also be considered. Electricity
has high exergy since it can be used in a wide variety of highly valued energy
applications such as lighting, heating, cooking, powering motors. Biochar can be
used as a solid fuel but is more difficult to use to convert it into high exergy and
useable power would cost a further efficiency loss (say 60-70%). Hence a decision
would have to be made as to whether lower energy values are assigned to nonelectricity co-products such as biochar, fuels and chemicals.
A separate issue is how to treat CHP process efficiencies and how to compare these
with power only projects. Total CHP efficiencies will typically be over 50% compared
to power only projects which will have a maximum efficiency of the order of 40%.
Hence, a poorly performing CHP plant may appear more efficient than a strongly
performing and technologically advanced power only plant.
It should also be recognised that to produce heat from Rankine cycle (steam)
systems, high exergy electricity needs to be sacrificed to yield low exergy heat.
Hence, the efficiency to power drops. There is no loss of power by extracting heat
from an engine or gas turbine generating system.

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 12 of 15

Other

Some companies have stronger engineering/science expertise than others. The

complexity required to set up an energy efficiency monitoring system may introduce
excessive costs to some companies who are not set up to manage the
accumulation of data needed.
There may also be an issue for companies buying RDF or SRF in from a variety of
companies including from abroad. RDF supply companies may not be in a position
to, or have a desire to, produce accurate and robust energy balance information.

Conclusions: Use of an Efficiency Cut off for Advanced and

Standard ACTs.

In principle, the use of an efficiency cut off measure could be applied to any energy
conversion process including existing incinerators. The above issues, particularly
around setting consistent energy balance boundaries would still apply.
Such a system should be expected to drive innovation in incineration technologies
with heat recovery for power generation to achieve higher efficiencies.

6.1

Implementation Costs

To calculate and report the whole system efficiency, where the system includes fuel
pre-treatment and upstream processes, would require a reporting tool similar to the
Biomass GHG Lifecycle Assessment Tool.
The cost of developing this tool was around 80,000 not including cost of project
management and the cost of hosting and maintaining the tool once developed.
The Biomass GHG Lifecycle Assessment Tool incorporates a credit (albeit a little
awkwardly) for digestate from AD. The credits arising in a MRF would be more
numerous and difficult to calculate. Hence, a pre-study would be required to assess
and define the best way to allocate MRF energy inputs. We estimate that this would
cost of the order of 50,000. This kind of project might best be delivered with a LCA
practitioner.
We estimate therefore a total cost of 130,000 minimum and a timescale of 10-12
months to implement a system, modelled on the Biomass GHG Lifecycle Assessment
Tool.
Additionally, Ofgem would require initial set up costs for IT and staffing of the order
of 1million. Whether this full cost would need to be incurred depends on the
precise scheme design and any savings from learning with doing that could be
made.
Costs of compliance would, we estimate, require a half full time equivalent (FTE)
having an estimated annual cost of 20,000-30,000/year. If a much more limited

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 13 of 15

requirement is placed on small operators such as for the Biomass GHG Lifecycle Tool
scheme, then these could be of the order of 2,000-3,000 /year.

Energy from Waste: Efficiency based measurement, Page 14 of 15

NNFCC
NNFCC is a leading international consultancy with expertise on the conversion of
biomass to bioenergy, biofuels and bio-based products.

NNFCC, Biocentre,
York Science Park,
Innovation Way,
Heslington, York,
YO10 5DG.

Phone: +44 (0)1904 435182

Fax: +44 (0)1904 435345
E: enquiries@nnfcc.co.uk
Web: www.nnfcc.co.uk